[longshadow]

This sounds like a confusion of separate incidents in science. [snip]

It think the author is confusing the prediction of the precession of Mercury's perihelion with some sort of test of SR. He's got it all mixed up. You're right about the bending of starlight being the falsification test of GR.

It's too bad; the author's analysis of Popper and his conclusions re: ID are spot on. Oh, well, that's what one gets when one lets a philosophy nerd write an article.

[VadeRetro]

The precession of Mercury's perihelion was a success for relativity, but that success lay in explaining a known and puzzling phenomenon, not in predicting it.

[Thatcherite]

It think the author is confusing the prediction of the precession of Mercury's perihelion with some sort of test of SR. He's got it all mixed up. You're right about the bending of starlight being the falsification test of GR.

Sounds like I'm confused too in what I thought. I think relativity is one of those things that should probably be left to professionals. I just remembered another successful prediction; don't the clocks on the shuttle run slow enough for the difference to be detectable by the time it lands after a long flight? I'm sure I read it somewhere (so it must be true). I think it was in Relativities Chapter 3 Verses 4-6.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's what happens without peer review. (Or simple editorial proof reading.)